Persons claiming interest in waqf property must demonstrate appropriate standing under the Waqf Act to challenge actions regarding the property, as determined by the defined scope of 'person interested' in Section 3(k).

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 09-09-2022 passed by the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Application No.20 of 2018, whereby order leasing of property to the 6^th respondent comes to be set aside.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

2.1. The petitioner is said to be the Muthawalli of the subject Waqf property. The petitioner claims to be a Shia waqf and in terms of waqf deed dated 6-04-1953 the petitioner waqf is said to have been created. The property that is in the name of the waqf is what is described as a schedule to the petition. The petitioner submits an application on 5-05-2017 to the 5^th respondent/Karnataka State Board of Auqaf (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’ for short) for development and lease of waqf property measuring 94488 sq. ft. at Richmond Road, Bengaluru. Bids were called in a manner known to law by issuing notifications in the newspapers of each of the language viz., Deccan Herald, Daily Salaar and Prajawani. It is the averment in the petition that the property to be put to lease was displayed in the notice board of major Masjids in the City of Bengaluru. In response to the said notification, builders, developers and individuals showed their interest and it was informed to the Board that certain amount of tender fee is also received.

2.2. On a scrutiny of tender documents that were received, the 5^th respondent/Board submits its request to the 4^th respondent/ Government seeking approval of lease of land for a period of 30 years and to permit the petitioner waqf to enter into lease agreement with the 6^th respondent. The Government grants permission to lease out the said property in favour of the 6^th respondent for construction of commercial complex which would give rent to the waqf. After about 18 months of the date of grant of approval of lease, respondents 1 and 2 filed an application in Application No.20 of 2018 before the Tribunal against the petitioner and all others seeking to set aside the approval granted by the 4^th respondent and consequent entering into lease agreement. The Tribunal, in terms of its order impugned, sets aside approval granted by the State Government and all consequential actions. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner who was the 4^th respondent before the Tribunal is at the doors of this Court calling in question order passed by the Tribunal, in the light of the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal is revisable by this Court.

3. Heard Sri Mahamood Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Muniswamy Gowda H, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri N.Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4, Ms. Shabahath Sultana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri Srinivasa Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Mahamood Patel would submit that respondents 1 and 2 who had approached the Tribunal had no locus to challenge the action of the petitioner in entering into a lease for the purpose of generating rents to the waqf, which is approved by the Government. The Board was not functioning at the relevant point in time. An Administrator was appointed in terms of Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) who has sought permission from the State Government and only after the approval was granted, the lease was entered into. It is, therefore, the action of entering into lease is in terms of law and cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal glossed over the issue with regard to respondents 1 and 2 fitting into the definition of ‘interested person’ under the Act. If they had no locus to challenge, the matter could not have been heard on its merits.

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri A.Mohammed Tahir appearing for respondents 1 and 2/appl